What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
105 Comments
- Shiftgood, on 06/27/2008, -6/+27Ok i know some of you are just foaming at the mouth and cant wait to tear into Californians for being "hippie moonbat liberals" and tell us how "global warming is a lie to make Al Gore rich"... but I got to tell you something before you write.. something to think about.
Global warming or not.. Pollution is still pollution.. which is bad. Regardless of the climate change aspect. Its always good to find sources of energy that do not pollute the air we breath, the water we drink and the land we live on.
Global warming or not... Innovation in new technologies for energy or transportation should always be encouraged.. even if its for the sake of innovation and expansion of our own knowledge as a species.
Ok, you can rant now about how im a sheep or something. Thanks for listening. - alapoet, on 06/26/2008, -5/+25When it comes to environmental regulaations California goes, so goes the nation... a few years later.
I just hope this is put on the fast track in the other 49 states. - granolajoe, on 06/26/2008, -9/+28California is ahead of the pack. Now if the rest of the U.S. could follow suit...
- GinaJuice, on 06/27/2008, -3/+17Once again California keeps pushing for better standards, although I wish they didn't puss out on the 10% EV mandate they tried to initiate.
- meganpru, on 06/26/2008, -11/+25SuperGu - the economy doesn't really matter if the planet is inhabitable, now does it?
Glad to see my home state taking steps to cut emissions! :) - corbettkroehler, on 06/26/2008, -4/+14China is prospering because they send their air pollution to us.
Solar Richmond, a community program for creating jobs and helping the economy of Northern California, is a great success.
Here's the bottom line: strick pollution standards PRODUCE jobs - jobs which are less susceptible to oursourcing. That's a good thing.
Sustainable refers to ecology AND economics! - GregFD3S, on 06/27/2008, -3/+11This is another reason why I love Nor Cal, we have PG&E, which uses minimal coal energy. Southern California gets most of their water from Nor Cal anyways, how much energy does that take?
Californee has always been ahead of the curve, Nor Cal or So Cal, hopefully the rest of the country can follow in our footsteps. - norman619, on 06/27/2008, -2/+8My god you have to be one of the most ignorant people here so far. You, like most members of the Church of Human Caused Global warming, are ignoring the fact that CO2 does not drive climate changes. CO2 levels FOLLOW not precede the rise and fall of global temps. The fact that in that span of 12 months 100 years of global warming was virtually erased even though human production of CO2 world wide has risen not fallen seems to escape you people. Or are you guys now claiming CO2 causes global cooling not global warming?
- norman619, on 06/27/2008, -4/+10And the California economy has been suffering for a while now due to their ridiculous regulations which have driven many companies to other states or other countries. Open your eyes. California will get the drop in emissions but only because people and businesses are LEAVING the state.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 06/27/2008, -2/+7Aggressive plan to cut emissions:
The Governator riding a Harley Davidson through town with a railgun taking out SUV's while apologizing to bystanders for the noise. - Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -2/+7You make it sound like it's an easy problem to fix...out of curiosity what do you think a reasonable solution would be? The easy answer is public transportation but it's a lot harder to get to where you need to go in a place like California where everything is very spread out than it is in a place like England where shops and things are all centrally located in the town's center. Plus people are stubborn and it'd be difficult to get everyone used to living with public transportation. Aside from public transportation the only other thing I can think of would be widening the freeways but that's not realistic since they're already huge and there's not really any more room to widen them, plus that's just a band aid for the bigger problem which is simply too many cars on the road...
I don't know, I just don't see how it's an easy (practical) fix. I agree it needs to change, just don't see how it's possible. - NomortaL1, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6Thank you! someone remembers!
- scottc, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Hippies think the answer is government regulation?? Have you ever met a hippie? They are, on average, more anti-government than today's conservatives. And back when it was popular to be a hippie they were the ones who stood up to the conservative governments and demanded freedom from all kinds of regulation.
- weregeek, on 06/27/2008, -2/+7Having lived all over the country, California included, I think I can best sum up the California stance on energy an pollution as:
"We want a clean environment....here.
Many Californians who complain about the environment, while consuming more than their share, get their electricity from coal fired plants outside of their own state at requisite transmission loss.
CARB has consistently failed to pay attention to reality in such a way as to move emissions to other regions while attempting to stand on high moral ground. I am all for lower pollution of the environment, though I am not quick to support many CARB initiatives. Californians seem all too ready to claim emissions victories locally when they fail to recognize that they are just moving pollution to other regions usually at greater environmental expense. - SemiSarcastic, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5I don't mind what they're doing here, but I'm more worried when these politics become a majority in the thinking. All things that become a majority in politics eventually becomes corrupted. There needs to be a balance between liberals and conservatives.
- piratearggghhh, on 06/27/2008, -2/+6It's naive to think an unregulated free market can solve everything - what it's shown is that businesses have an incentive to act selfishly leading to industrial pollution and corporate fraud. For the digg economists out there who preach capitalism, look up Free Rider problem.
- C02Charlie, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Facts be damned! This isn't about protecting the planet! It's about redistributing wealth from evil, rich energy companies and SUV owners into government coffers where politicians and bureaucrats get to play Santa with the money to buy votes and keep people depending on them for money and "solutions" like these.
There are two types of people that believe humans are causing the death of this planet: the galactically stupid and the infernally evil. It's a match made in hell. - norman619, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Just as soon as winged monkeys begin to fly out of your butt.
- jameshales, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3The Governator's Hummer runs on hydrogen.
- mjhamilton, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3You seriously think that in the dawn of the industrial age, you would have had the foresight to say, "hey, what about the environment?" Cavemen got us here? You self-righteous prick. You have a voice on the internet because of those "cavemen."
- Porch, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4In fact, it's very simple. Massive failure of local government planning is the cause. Too little housing exist in the LA area. This drives up the prices of the houses that do exist, and forces people to commute.
When you open a business, the city government says you have to have X number of parking spots for X number of customers. But they didn't do the same for housing. Instead they zone off areas so that you can only build houses in X spot and businesses in X spot. Even if you had a perfect spot to build an apartment for 200 people, if it's zoned for a business, you can't.
The easy way to fix this in 20 years is to rezone and offer tax breaks for developers to build housing. Then people won't have to commute, housing prices will drop, and smog will go down.
As for public transport, I was told it cost the tax payer 2$ per mile, per person to move them around. A taxi will do the same for $1.85 and it will pick you up at your door. If you want more proof that public transit is a failure, a private business started running their own transport service using Ford vans. Doing the same thing as the Metro, but the city shut them down. They figured if everyone went to the cheaper, better private buses, the city would look like a fool.
As for the auto smog restrictions, when it gets to the point that you have to buy a new car every 50k because the old one will no longer pass smog, what is the point? They keep making it harder and harder for my truck to pass smog. Right now, it feels like they want it to run cleaner then it did new to pass smog.
So if I sell it and buy a new truck, how much environmental pollution did I cause in the building of the new truck? Did I save the air or cause more smog? I guess as long as it's not in CA since cars are not made here.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -2/+5Bush supporters have no business talking about the economy.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3The plan will be a failure in every regard except for the increased revenue to the state. Since you cant see that you clearly belong on my blocked list.
- MSP1, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3Would that be because "The Market" (spit) caused the problem in the first place?
- scoottie, on 06/27/2008, -1/+4great more useless changes that will cost us millions and make life even more expensive
- xexx, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3uninhabitable you mean?
- Shiftgood, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3I think the theory is that the start up costs of getting this renewable energy is so devastating that these new (and desirable) companies would not be able to make it to the market without support.
It seems to me that the market would philosophically enjoy cleaner air and fuels, but realistically would stick to the cheapest, crudest form of attaining them.. and therefore would not shift without force. (kind of like our oil situation right now).
Another point is that... these companies are actually doing physical harm to the people and land of the state.. and so maybe they should fork over a little to figure out how to clean up their mess.
And just to make sure im coming across long winded and preachy im going to make the point that the "invisible hand" method that you are suggesting still puts these people out of business...just at a marginally later time. - oldgal, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Must be why California is such an economic failure.
/sarcasm - marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Please inform me how "the market" does a better job of regulating a heavily polluting natural monopoly like a regional power company.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4I think there's enough consumer support for environmentally friendly solutions without all the government regulation. I would love to see a proof that government intervention is better in the long term after "all things considered". History shows us governments create a lot of unintended consequences.
On an unrelated note, California is full of douche bags. I would know. I've been there once. Also, I've seen that South Park episode and that makes me goddamn near an expert on California's doucheyness. Smug *****. - whoreable, on 06/27/2008, -5/+7California Introduces Aggressive Plan to **TERMINATE** Emissions
/Fixed - cornerbodega, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4apparently same sex marriage is good for the environment, too!
- jayscot, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Science based on consensus prevails against science based on the scientific method.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Since what you are saying is the truth people are digging you down. There are a lot of people on here completely out of touch with reality. This will end up costing citizens more money and have zero effect on pollution levels.
- TheCasablancan, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Maybe you're just a pessimist.
- argo2d, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2it would unfortunately be rather hypocritical of us to denounce china as the cause of the pollution though. A better interpretation of the global situation would be that we are all in this together and all carry the responsibility to ensure a sustainable planet
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2wtf is the matter with you?
- bincoder, on 06/26/2008, -7/+9Wonderful.
Now why don't they redesign the roads so that the 'less' polluting vehicles can actually drive from point A to B without sitting in traffic for hours. A moving car pollutes far less than one thats driven with nothing but gas and brake technology.
The 'cleanest' state in the nation still has a soup of smog over it so apparently their normal ways of cleaning the air do not work.
Save time, money and gas. Make the roads drivable. - Chaos12, on 06/27/2008, -4/+6I hope to see this become a trend among states in the near future.
- winmywii, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2You act like liberals are all for government regulations and that the conservatives (or at least neocons) aren't. Isn't banning gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, etc considered government regulation??
- marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2Yes because green technologies obviously don't require...technologists...
- C02Charlie, on 06/27/2008, -2/+4"California really seems to be at least one step ahead in terms of the protection of our environment."
RTFA! This ISN'T about protecting the environment, as "polluters" will be able to buy and trade "carbon credits" to allow them to continue to spew as much as they can! And who the hell do you think is going to end up paying for those credits??? Consumers, you freaking idiot, that's who! They will simply pass the cost of their fees onto the people who buy their energy! That's a hidden tax on every man, woman, child and business in the state and it's simply another way for the state to take in revenue (a.k.a. tax more) without a single politician having to be accountable for it! After all: these decisions are being made by unelected "regulators! It's a form of fascism and it needs to be stopped! - marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2They'll be back
- MacParrot, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I would rather that more countries work to produce less pollution that selling carbon credits. I think that's a zero sum game simply making some people richer at the expense of the environment.
Instead of saying, "Here's some pollution credits because we're not using them.", how about a tariff based on estimated pollution levels by certain countries (like China, India, Japan, Korea, and the US) that would be added to the overall imported price (not added after the fact by the importers) of goods known to be big polluters in the manf process?
This encourages cleaner manufacturing methods instead of just shifting the burden. Obviously this is just off the top of my balding head so any thoughts along these lines would be appreciated. - marx2k, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2I was really wondering what the hell happened to that. I remember ordering a brochure from Saturn when they were working on their electric vehicle prototype and that info was in there (10% EV by such and such a date) ... years later I was wondering where that went...
So they just decided to dump that, huh? - Porch, on 06/27/2008, -1/+3Don't forget, almost all of the politicians in CA drive massive SUVs. None practice what they preach. Why should we suffer because of them?
- Porch, on 06/27/2008, -0/+2At a local Metro/RTA train station, they covered the parking lot with solar panels. Good for the environment, but they do little good as they point west and not south to the sun so a lot of daylight is wasted. West is the direction of the freeway overpass that offers a good view of the panels so the public can get a warm fuzzy feeling.
- norman619, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Get it right. That's nuculur!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is